This is a valid concern. I’m having second thoughts about splitting into two markets and not just keeping deeper liquidity in a single GMX-USD market.
Another important reason which will be a major drag for good GMX markets liquidity is upcoming MP > esGMX conversion. If these esGMX will be vestable only by reserving full initial GMX stack that will prevent transition from staked GMX to gmGMX. Only way to avoid this is to make new esGMX vestable without any reserve requirements.
For investors holding GMX and a large amount of MP that can be converted to esGMX, we can consider them long-term investors like you. You have consistently claimed that you will not vest any esGMX, which is the same for many people. They also don’t need to vest esGMX because once these tokens enter the vesting process, they lose their ability to earn revenue.
For these long-term investors, regardless of the vesting requirements for esGMX, it does not affect their ability to freely allocate GMX to the Staked GMX Pool or the SS GMX Pool, as they will not be impacted by the vesting requirements at all.
Unless these investors are not long-term supporters like you and are eager to exit, they would urgently hope for no vesting requirements. In this scenario, the vesting requirements serve as a buffer instead, dispersing and reducing the concentrated and continuous selling pressure on GMX from MP_esGMX over the next year.
1 Like
The GMX-USD market is crucial in order for the protocol to also be able to facilitate GMX swaps.
The single-sided GMX market is a valuable alternative to native staking of GMX. And an interesting initial experiment for potentially exploring other GMX-backed markets.
I have the feeling it’s worth trying both, despite the liquidity fragmentation.
Are you hoping these long time hodlers will unstake GMX leaving only esGMX staked? Maybe some but not many. And what about shorter time frame investors who are vesting or vested their esGMX already? My assumption is they will be in rush to vest airdroped esGMX too. And strict vesting reserve requirements can become serious hurdle for GMX to freely flow between native staking and gm LP.
I believe your assumption is also valid; there is indeed the possibility of a negative impact on the SS GMX Pool. The downside of canceling the vesting requirement might be that more esGMX will be converted into GMX in the future. Considering the latest GMX circulation is 1.58M, the conversion of 400k GMX could result in up to a 25% increase in supply. There is no absolutely perfect solution, but since there will be a vote on this issue, it is good to let community members make the choice.
Thank you for bringing up this point.
2 Likes
The proposal passed the Snapshot vote, and as a result GMX markets should be launching soon!
1 Like